THREE SOVIET VETOES

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24913, 28 June 1946, Page 7

THREE SOVIET VETOES

Security Council On Spain

LONG ARGUMENT (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 9 p.m.) NEW YORK, June 26. After a long sitting of the United Nations Security Council, in which Mr Gromyko (Russia) used the veto power three times against proposals for dealing with the Spanish question, informed quarters said that the Russian actions, and the demonstration that any member of the Big Five could decide whether a subject was substantive or procedural, were bound to bring the whole subject of the veto to a head during the Assembly’s September meeting.

The sub-committee appointed by the United Nations Security Council to try to obtain agreement about the text of the new Polish resolution on Spain had been unsuccessful, according to a report presented by Dr. H. V. Evatt (Australia), who presented the text of a new resolution on behalf of himself and Sir Alexander Cadogan, comprising a majority of the sub-committee. This was designed tef keep the Spanish question on the Council’s agenda in a manner consistent with the findings of the original sub-committee which investigated the Spanish question, and to enable the General Assembly at a proper time to take up the matter without restriction and make any relevant recommendation.

Mr Lange (Poland) dissented, and repeated the arguments which he had used to support his original resolution. He described the amendemnt as weak. Mr Gromyko also called the amendment weak. He said that if the reference in it to the Assembly’s rights was designed to ensure that the Assembly discussed the Spanish question irrespective of whether it was referred to it by the Council or not, then it was absolutely contrary to the terms of the Charter. After' Dr. Evatt had replied, the Council by nine votes to two approved the new resolution. Russia and Poland opposed it. Procedural or Substantive? When the amendment was declared carried, Mr Gromyko immediately protested that the amendment was rejected because he, as the only permanent member, had voted against it. He claimed that the amendment was not procedural but substantive, and that the veto consequently applied. e JJ or a j era (Mexico), chairman of the Council, ruled that the amendment was procedural only. There followed an argument lasting nearly three hours in which the t of dele «ates, particularly those of Mr Gromyko and Dr. Evatt, became more and more frayed. .Senor Najera finally asked the Council for a vote on whether It regarded the amendment as procedural or substantive. This vote resulted in favour • A . amendment being procedural, with Mr Gromyko and Mr Lange again forming the minority. M. Parodi (France) abstained from voting. Mr Gromyko promptly claimed that the veto should be applied to this quesab3 °, and was upheld by Senor Najera. This in effect meant that Dr. isvatt s original amendment was also vetoed. Dr. Evatt protested that the ruling was based pn a San Francisco decision which was not supported by anyone except the five sponsoring Powers. It meant that a permanent member CO u » on^y ve t° a decision overwhelmingly carried by the Council, but could also determine the question y.hich he would veto. That was scandalous. Dr. Evatt suggested that the Council should pass as a new resolution that part of his amendment providing that without prejudice to the rights of the Assembly the Security Council should keep the Spanish situation under continuous observation and retain it on the list of matters with which it was seized, in order that it would at all times be ready to take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Mr Gromyko said he would agree to that, providing that the words “without prejudice to the rights of the Assembly” were eliminated, and a clause added providing that the Council should again consider the subject before September 1.

Heated Protests Both Sir Alexander Cadogan and Dr. Evatt heatedly protested against Mr Gromyko’s suggestion. Sir Alexander Cadogan said that Mr Gromyko was “trying to put across the Council the original Polish resolution.” It was fantastic that such an attempt should be made.

Dr. Evatt said: “Mr Gromyko will have,to understand that his ‘No’ cannot be exercised against proposal after proposal until his own ideas are the only ones left. He now wants to try to force the Council to accept a resolution which by implication has already been rejected by the vast majority.” Mr Gromyko then moved a resolution that- the Council keep the Spanish question on the agenda and again discuss it before September 1. but omitting the words desired by Sir Alexander Cadogan and Dr. Evatt, that the Council’s decisions should be without prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly. The Council again became enmeshed in legal argument, suggestion and counter-suggestion. Finally, a vote on Mr Gromyko’s motion was taken clause by clause, the Council agreeing to retain the Spanish question on the agenda, but rejecting the portion requiring further discussion before September 1. The debate had largely developed into a fight between Dr, Evatt and Mr Gromyko, with only a few other members speaking, and then briefly. The Cadogan-Evatt resolution was finally put, every member voting for it, except Mr Gromyko and Mr Lange. Senor Najera declared that the motion was lost by the Soviet veto.